View Poll Results: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    77 91.67%
  • No

    7 8.33%
Page 10 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 510

Thread: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  1. #91
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    the potential of being in the militia was a sufficient reason not a necessary one

    and more importantly, the federal government was never delegated the power to regulate small arms thus the 9th and Tenth amendments are actually more important
    I'm not arguing against private ownership of weapons, more against the people who seem to think they ought to be able to own anything and everything, from RPGs to tanks to nukes, because they interpret the second amendment absurdly broadly.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #92
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    The problem is, we're not all members of the militia. Without a draft, we cannot be called to military service at a moment's notice and even in the event of a draft, not only could we not bring our own weapons, we would be prohibited from doing so.
    Conscription isn't a function of the militia-- that's the function of the standing military, which our Founding Fathers opposed. Now, I'm not opposed to having a standing army at all, but I think that this is in addition to the militia and should never be considered a replacement for the militia, which is an essential institution in any free society. The militia is an all-volunteer force whose individual members answer the call to arms at their own discretion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Therefore, the right to bear arms has absolutely no bearing on the modern-day "militia". We have to look at what was written in the context of the time at which it was written and understand their intent. Like it or not, the Constitution cannot be reasonably expected to deal with situations that the founding fathers could not have conceivably foreseen.
    The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the United States would rely entirely on its militia instead of fielding a standing army. While they certainly could have foreseen our modern military, they would have been opposed to it and wrote the 2nd Amendment-- and other articles of militia law-- to ensure that the militia could serve as an adequate replacement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    When do you think they'll be doing that?
    Never, unfortunately. But pessimism about their willingness to do the right thing is no excuse for removing their ability to do the right thing.

  3. #93
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,546

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I'm not arguing against private ownership of weapons, more against the people who seem to think they ought to be able to own anything and everything, from RPGs to tanks to nukes, because they interpret the second amendment absurdly broadly.
    The second amendment doesn't say guns, but arms. If allowing RPGs and bombs is interpreting it absurdly broadly, why isn't general ownership of guns of whatever sort the purchaser wants the same?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #94
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the United States would rely entirely on its militia instead of fielding a standing army. While they certainly could have foreseen our modern military, they would have been opposed to it and wrote the 2nd Amendment-- and other articles of militia law-- to ensure that the militia could serve as an adequate replacement.
    The problem is, we agree that the modern U.S. is not something that the founding fathers would have wanted, clearly what they wrote in the founding documents can no longer be said to be applicable to the modern world, with a military situation outside of their intent, then people take the second amendment, which is a single sentence, strip off the first half of that sentence, and pretend that they're following the intent of the founding fathers?

    And then they do backflips desperately trying to rationalize that action. I don't get it.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #95
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Their intent to support the militia and their intent to not have a standing army are separate issues. We can have a standing army, against the Founders' intent, and still follow their intent as it pertains to the militia and the rights thereof.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Their intent to support the militia and their intent to not have a standing army are separate issues. We can have a standing army, against the Founders' intent, and still follow their intent as it pertains to the militia and the rights thereof.
    And so long as that militia is well-regulated, as they intended, I have no problem with that. When do you think that's going to happen?
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #97
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    And so long as that militia is well-regulated, as they intended, I have no problem with that. When do you think that's going to happen?
    You are putting the cart before the horse. The militia cannot be properly supported and function as intended until it is allowed to operate as it was intended to-- our immoral and unconstitutional gun laws are preventing the militia from serving its intended purpose, and then you are using its failure to function as intended to justify those immoral and unconstitutional laws. I know you're not a Brady man, but the argument you're making here was taken directly from their playbook; this is what operations like Fast & Furious were all about.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    This is how I understand The Militia: it is a reserve force, made up of every-day folks, to be called up in the case of an emergency that the regular armed forces cannot handle alone.

    the Militia was created because the USA had a very small army. This is why The Militia was called up in such great numbers during the Civil War.

    but now, we have a huge military, and most of the functions of the Militia have been taken by the State National Guard, which is often times called "the State Militia".

    clearly, things between 1789 and 2011 have changed a lot, and what was needed back then..is not needed now.

    but, folks don't want to Amend the 2nd Amendment, so even though it make sense to do it, it shall not happen.

  9. #99
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Why bother amending it when every tinpot would-be dictator in the country thinks he can just ignore it? Gun grabbers are as bad as pro-lifers.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Are pro-2nd Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Why bother amending it when every tinpot would-be dictator in the country thinks he can just ignore it? Gun grabbers are as bad as pro-lifers.
    well, "gun-grabbers" aren't motivated by extremist religious dogma.

Page 10 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •